Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1070939
16 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 13 JANUARY 2019 INTERVIEW Another year, another migrant stand-off, another diplomatic wrangle between Malta and Italy, and another uneasy compromise involving a verbal, non-binding relocation agreement among individual countries. One can't help but feel a certain sensation of deja-vu. It's as though we are condemned to relive the same drama, over and over again. Do you share that sentiment? Yes, absolutely. The dynamics may have changed in the minor details: in the past, for instance, it may have been fishermen rescuing migrants, instead of NGO vessels. Or maybe tuna pens as they were being towed towards Malta. But those are just minor details. In essence, the political response has re- mained the same; the general popular response is unchanged; and at European level, every- thing is exactly as it was be- fore. With every incident, some government or other always says, 'This is a watershed mo- ment; we can't go on like this', etc. When there are tragedies in which large numbers die at sea, there is always a call for change. But in practical terms, nothing substantial ever really happens. You're reminding me of the 2013 tragedy, when around 350 died after a boat capsized off Lampedusa. The funeral service was held here, attended by all the great and good of Europe; and if I remember correctly, there was a lot of talk about 'action' to prevent future tragedies… [Nodding] There was a whole parade, with promises like 'this will never happen again… this is shameful, this is a blot on Eu- rope', and so on… … and yet, it has just kept happening ever since. In this latest case, we're not talking about dead bodies, but living people – 49 in all, including women and children - left out at sea for 16 days. To come straight to the point: do you think that the Maltese government deliberately left those people out there, in order to exacerbate the political drama, and thereby 'force' other countries to accede to its demands? Totally. It was an intentional government strategy, with a specific goal in mind. This is evident even from the result: what government was trying to negotiate was not just the relo- cation of those 49 people. Had it been just those, they would been relocated in a day. The whole saga would have been over two weeks ago. But what the Maltese government tried to do – and we feel it wasn't done very nicely – was to leave those people out at sea, in or- der to use them as political lev- erage to get other countries to take in another group of refu- gees… who, by government's own admission, fell fully within Malta's legal and political re- sponsibility. The resolution passed a few days ago envisages that eight EU countries will admit, not just the 49 from those two boats… but also the ones who had been rescued the week be- fore: even though those were indisputably our responsibility. So what the government re- ally did was use those 49 peo- ple to put pressure on other EU member states, to take in people who technically should have remained here. That is what we find even more seri- ous about this latest case. I can understand the disagreement regarding political responsibil- ity for those 49 in particular. They were rescued outside our SAR Zone; there are issues concerning the NGO vessel, and so on. Agreed, fine. It still doesn't justify leaving them out at sea; but I can understand that there were questions. But then again, I don't expect my government to use those ques- tions to force other countries to take over what is clearly our own responsibility. God forbid we have reached a stage where EU member states can just wash their hands of their own responsibilities, and use hu- man beings as bargaining chips to do so. If so, the entire system would collapse… And yet, the questions are real and pressing. For instance: whose responsibility were those 49 people, anyway? And if another EU country – in this case, Italy – can (and does) shirk its international obligations all the time… how does it follow that Malta always has to make good for Italy's failures? It all depends how you look at it: whether you take a purely legal perspective, or the moral approach… for instance: do we look at whose responsibility those people were, only at the time of their rescue? Or when they were closer to Malta? It's not a clear-cut situation. Ul- timately, though, what I re- ally feel we need to keep tell- ing both government and the public is that… unfortunately, our nearest neighbour to the South is a warzone. And it is a country with a documented history of very severe human rights violations. It's not nice to have a neighbour like that; but it's a fact, and there is nothing we can do about it. No amount of stamping our feet and complaining is going to change it. And inevitably, be- ing the neighbor of a warzone, we are also going to get refu- gees. Now: either we are going to accept that fact, and find a way of dealing with it… or sim- ply throw a tantrum with every passing incident. But Libya wasn't always a warzone. And the refugee crisis did not begin with Gaddafi's downfall; it has been ongoing for two decades now. So even if Libya does somehow reinvent itself as a peaceful, stable country in the near future… what reason is there to suppose that the situation concerning irregular immigration would automatically improve? It will not 'improve' in the sense that refugees will stop fleeing their home countries, or anything like that. As long as there are wars, there will be ref- ugees. It is another unfortunate fact of life that we just have to face. And it's not just war and persecution, either; there is extreme poverty, famine, drought… this is something we feel we have to keep stressing. It doesn't have to be war to dis- place people. Ultimately, if you can't feed your family, you're going to move. But I disagree that an improvement in the Libyan situation would have no effect. If Libya does dramati- cally change as a nation – as other North African countries have changed – you could en- visage a scenario whereby Lib- ya could offer a safe haven: first and foremost, for its own citi- zens… which is not the case at the moment. And potentially, in future, it may become a safe place for other refugees. And it might also provide eco- nomic opportunities. In years gone by, when there was an economic boom in Libya, many migrants had flocked there be- cause there was a lot of work on offer for non-Libyan nationals. Even then, however, there were still reports of human rights vi- olations; and once the civil war broke out, the situation wors- ened into what it is today. But I don't think we should give up on Libya. The EU still needs to engage with Libya, and other struggling nations. We should help Libya rebuild itself as a na- tion; of course we should. But we should not limit our efforts only to giving them money for border patrols. That is not go- ing to solve Libya's problems; it is only an attempt to solve Europe's own problem… by extending the European bor- Human rights lawyer and activist NEIL FALZON, of Aditus Foundation, stresses the need to bring human rights back to the table when talking about migration 'Europe's failure' shouldn't be ours, too God forbid we have reached a stage where EU member states can just wash their hands of their own responsibilities, and use human beings as bargaining chips to do so Raphael Vassallo Raphael Vassallo rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt